d34dluk3 wrote:I think test day nerves are a good explanation. The problem is that LSAC will not think so. *Fingers crossed for a slight bump in the equating scale*

Oh I completely I understand how it could happen to people.

I mean it made me pause for a second. Having been so used to converting everything to letters and ignoring what those letters actually represent (i.e. who cares if it's an ultrasaur, in my mind it's U), that when I read the rule I had to go back to the stimulus and reread it quickly to know which variable the rule applied to because I had already discarded the knowledge that some were countries and some were professions as irrelevant.

One: the way in which the term was used (or not used). That is, the debatted term was not used at any other time during the game, whether it be in the set-up, questions, etc. Had the term been linked its appropriate meaning at another point during section, it would have helped clear up the ambiguity.

Two: the wording of the rule. If I remember correctly, the (near-)exact wording of the rule started as "___ and ____ work together in the same ____". The word "together" helps exacerbate the ambiguity. It is possible for the reader to presume that "working together" meant geographically.

This brings about another point of discussion which I have seen raised here:

Did the game ever say that the interns would be GOING anywhere? To my memory, I cannot recall the game EVER explicitly stating that the interns would be going anywhere. However, that being said, if you remember what the two positions the interns could be working in, one of them only makes sense if they are ON LOCATION.

With all of that in consideration, I'd have to say that those who report the issue to LSAC have a legitimate argument.

Disclaimer: I, myself however, did not interpret the correct incorrectly. The game before it (whose type I had been previously unexposed to) took up so much time, though, that by the time I got to the last game, I only had time to answer the first three questions with any degree of certainty. Therefore, I will not be reporting the issue to LSAC, but only for purely selfish reasons (please do not hate me); if the entire game is stricken from the record, I lose three correct answers and the benefit of the curve

One: the way in which the term was used (or not used). That is, the debatted term was not used at any other time during the game, whether it be in the set-up, questions, etc. Had the term been linked its appropriate meaning at another point during section, it would have helped clear up the ambiguity.

Two: the wording of the rule. If I remember correctly, the (near-)exact wording of the rule started as "___ and ____ work together in the same ____". The word "together" helps exacerbate the ambiguity. It is possible for the reader to presume that "working together" meant geographically.

apropos wrote:Done. It fits. It definitely does not fit as naturally, and definitely seems like a somewhat odd way to read it immediately, which is why I hadnt even considered this problem until I read this thread. If somewhat somehow whispered this ambiguity in my ear while I was taking the test, I wouldve second-guessed myself.

It does not fit naturally at all and is incredibly odd.

I'm not saying that it isn't grammatically correct when used this way (it is). I'm saying that it is not something any native English speaker would ever say, thus there is no reason for anyone to ever read the test as if it means it that way.

Well it sounds like you're arguing the degree of ambiguity, not so much whether there was none. The only thing I'll say it to this: "it is not something any native English speaker would ever say, thus there is no reason for anyone to ever read the test as if it means it that way."

Sure, native english speakers would at least very rarely, and only in some specific contexts, say that, but I don't think it follows that there is no reason to read the test that way. Rather, I don't think it follows that it's unreasonable for someone to read it that way. You don't read logic games like you read ordinary language. No one talks that precisely and accurately. Youre looking for relationships between words more than youre reading like you read a novel..

That's all. At the very least I think this is a very reasonable complaint. Really, I think it's a pretty serious error on the part of LSAC, even though I also think that the natural and easiest and most normal way of reading it would be the 'correct' way. But, not exactly the same, but relevant to the point that one reads these differently than ordinary language: the natural and easiest and most normal way of reading, say, conditions in "if.. then" form is not the "correct" way. In taking logic courses, and TAing for two of them, it is a well-known hurdle to get students to stop reading the statements the normal or natural way.

apropos wrote:Let me know if there is anything anyone else can do to help present this argument.

Apropos, your encouragement has been a breath of fresh air. Thank you!

I can't trust myself to clearly articulate the issue I am raising. I will do my absolute best, but my best may end up not being good enough. That said, the challenge being issued will likely become more compelling if several people all try to frame the argument in their own unique ways, use their own language, and describe the details of their individual test-day experiences.

Thank you all for your support and thoughtful counterarguments. I can't do this alone, and I am indebted to everyone for their continued participation in this discussion.

Last edited by citrustang on Wed Jun 09, 2010 8:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

apropos wrote:Well it sounds like you're arguing the degree of ambiguity, not so much whether there was none. The only thing I'll say it to this: "it is not something any native English speaker would ever say, thus there is no reason for anyone to ever read the test as if it means it that way."

Sure, native english speakers would at least very rarely, and only in some specific contexts, say that, but I don't think it follows that there is no reason to read the test that way. Rather, I don't think it follows that it's unreasonable for someone to read it that way. You don't read logic games like you read ordinary language. No one talks that precisely and accurately. Youre looking for relationships between words more than youre reading like you read a novel..

That's all. At the very least I think this is a very reasonable complaint. Really, I think it's a pretty serious error on the part of LSAC, even though I also think that the natural and easiest and most normal way of reading it would be the 'correct' way. But, not exactly the same, but relevant to the point that one reads these differently than ordinary language: the natural and easiest and most normal way of reading, say, conditions in "if.. then" form is not the "correct" way. In taking logic courses, and TAing for two of them, it is a well-known hurdle to get students to stop reading the statements the normal or natural way.

You're talking syntactically, I'm talking dictionally (which is the point at issue here).

The thought of any ambiguity in the rules honestly never crossed my mind until I read this thread. I guess I just don't associate the term in question with exotic European destinations. I would like to watch a trial where a lawyer began to question an expert witness by asking him to state their "specific area of expertise" only to see the opposing counsel object or ask for clarification because they thought the expert was being asked about his "plot of land". I won't complain if it leads to a more forgiving curve but IMO the curve will continue to resemble past June test administrations and with only 100 questions we're probably looking at a -10 regardless of any protests. Best of luck to those who are trying though.

Personally, I think the thing that helped be most with this and the mulch game was trying to look at the big picture of what the setup was suggesting rather than trying to apply the exact PS setup by classifying the specific game type.

apropos wrote:Well it sounds like you're arguing the degree of ambiguity, not so much whether there was none. The only thing I'll say it to this: "it is not something any native English speaker would ever say, thus there is no reason for anyone to ever read the test as if it means it that way."

Sure, native english speakers would at least very rarely, and only in some specific contexts, say that, but I don't think it follows that there is no reason to read the test that way. Rather, I don't think it follows that it's unreasonable for someone to read it that way. You don't read logic games like you read ordinary language. No one talks that precisely and accurately. Youre looking for relationships between words more than youre reading like you read a novel..

That's all. At the very least I think this is a very reasonable complaint. Really, I think it's a pretty serious error on the part of LSAC, even though I also think that the natural and easiest and most normal way of reading it would be the 'correct' way. But, not exactly the same, but relevant to the point that one reads these differently than ordinary language: the natural and easiest and most normal way of reading, say, conditions in "if.. then" form is not the "correct" way. In taking logic courses, and TAing for two of them, it is a well-known hurdle to get students to stop reading the statements the normal or natural way.

You're talking syntactically, I'm talking dictionally (which is the point at issue here).

Semantically? Well I meant there to make a larger point: That saying native english speakers would not speak that way would be more relevant if the ambiguity were found in an RC section. Because that is read as ordinary language by native english speakers. The way one reads logic games is just different. The precision is different, the way context works is different, and the way ordinary language functions is different. So it's just very reasonable that an ambiguity which would easily be read over without notice in normal prose would be striking and confusing and even read over 'wrongly' in a logic game set-up.

In other words: If you extracted the context of the ambiguous word and put it into the preface of a history of a magazine, no would probably would have noticed. But in the context of a LG it really shouldve been striking. Because, I think, in that context (context of an LG setup) it really couldve gone the other way.

"an area or setting of practical activity outside of office, school, factory, or laboratory: 'biologists working the field; a product tested in the field'"

as per thefreedictionary.com

Reporters and photographers work "in the field" as well. Especially field reporters, who often travel to exotic foreign countries to cover stories for their respective news organizations. It is also reasonable to guess that a field reporter would be paired with a photographer on a team. The two would then be working together "in the same field."

I did not misinterpret the term while taking the test, but I can definitely see the ambiguity.

Can anyone shed some light on the frequency with which entire games have been kicked from the scoring? Is their much precedent? Are they willing to do it, in the same way they have been willing to dismiss single LR questions? I don't think I've come across a games section from a prior test with a whole game unscored.

Bpobryan wrote:Can anyone shed some light on the frequency with which entire games have been kicked from the scoring? Is their much precedent? Are they willing to do it, in the same way they have been willing to dismiss single LR questions? I don't think I've come across a games section from a prior test with a whole game unscored.

There is no precedent for LSAC withdrawing a game or any LG question at all.

Said this a bit earlier in the thread, but it's worth repeating:

Out of approx 6500 LSAT questions, LSAC has withdrawn only 6:

4 LR and 2 RC

I would bet against them removing any question from the game or making any sort of effort to appease those who are unhappy with the game.

Bpobryan wrote:Can anyone shed some light on the frequency with which entire games have been kicked from the scoring? Is their much precedent? Are they willing to do it, in the same way they have been willing to dismiss single LR questions? I don't think I've come across a games section from a prior test with a whole game unscored.

There is no precedent for LSAC withdrawing a game or any LG question at all.

Said this a bit earlier in the thread, but it's worth repeating:

Out of approx 6500 LSAT questions, LSAC has withdrawn only 6:

4 LR and 2 RC

I would bet against them removing any question from the game or making any sort of effort to appease those who are unhappy with the game.

Really? I obviously have noe real statistical measure, but over the course of some practice tests it seemed like every once in a while there'd be a question removed from scoring on an LR section. Seemed like it would have had to have been more frequently than you mention. huh. go figure. so this whole thing is totally useless.

Bpobryan wrote:Can anyone shed some light on the frequency with which entire games have been kicked from the scoring? Is their much precedent? Are they willing to do it, in the same way they have been willing to dismiss single LR questions? I don't think I've come across a games section from a prior test with a whole game unscored.

There is no precedent for LSAC withdrawing a game or any LG question at all.

Said this a bit earlier in the thread, but it's worth repeating:

Out of approx 6500 LSAT questions, LSAC has withdrawn only 6:

4 LR and 2 RC

I would bet against them removing any question from the game or making any sort of effort to appease those who are unhappy with the game.

Really? I obviously have noe real statistical measure, but over the course of some practice tests it seemed like every once in a while there'd be a question removed from scoring on an LR section. Seemed like it would have had to have been more frequently than you mention. huh. go figure. so this whole thing is totally useless.

Then you also have to realize that if they were to remove an entire game it would result in the organization being extremely discredited and for the LSAC all they have is their reputation.

But the news anchor wouldn't mention a story and say several reporters are in the same field. The rule was about 2 people who could not be in the same field and 2 who must be. If the groups are specific locations I don't see how this could be ambiguous. A newscaster describing several reporters out in the field would not describe two reporters working on different stories in different locations as being in different fields unless you were watching ESPN. How did you guys interpret the last rule (i think) that specifically stated an entity that could not be in a location? That would seem to conflict with any previous misinterpretation.

Last edited by furrywalls on Wed Jun 09, 2010 9:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

furrywalls you should probably delete your post. the reason I didn't make specific references is so. I actually did misinterpret the given word. I also actually did catch it 1-2 questions in, and changed it, then continued on in the game. I finished, (still struggled on questions solely because of difficulty) but the misinterpretation cost me probably 2 minutes or so of time. I have a journalism background, not sure if that contributed. BUT I do not consider myself an idiot, or it daft of me, to have made such a mistake. I don't want the section thrown out because I still feel I did moderately well on it, and probably got 100% on the first 3, but I do feel that it was a term that could have (as it was) been taken in more than one way, especially upon initial read.

How are you certain this particular LG section is a scored section? I am aware that in most (if not all) tests the experimental section is in section one, two, or three. What if an individual, hypothetically speaking, had two LG in the first three sections?

Bpobryan wrote:Can anyone shed some light on the frequency with which entire games have been kicked from the scoring? Is their much precedent? Are they willing to do it, in the same way they have been willing to dismiss single LR questions? I don't think I've come across a games section from a prior test with a whole game unscored.

There is no precedent for LSAC withdrawing a game or any LG question at all.

Said this a bit earlier in the thread, but it's worth repeating:

Out of approx 6500 LSAT questions, LSAC has withdrawn only 6:

4 LR and 2 RC

I would bet against them removing any question from the game or making any sort of effort to appease those who are unhappy with the game.

Really? I obviously have noe real statistical measure, but over the course of some practice tests it seemed like every once in a while there'd be a question removed from scoring on an LR section. Seemed like it would have had to have been more frequently than you mention. huh. go figure. so this whole thing is totally useless.

If you look at the number of questions it's 6 out of 6500 or ~ 0.09% of all questions. If we assume that all 6 were from different tests (IDK if that is actually the case) then 6 out of 59 tests or ~ 10.2% of all tests contain an omitted question. If you think about it in those terms it might make more sense.

However, we're not trying to calculate the odds that they will remove something from the test. We're interested in whether or not they'll adjust an entire game. There is no precedent for this so the statistics aren't as helpful as they would be for RC and LR.